Are/were the Batman fans responsible for a lot of the hate?

kongisking

Active member
JP Jones said:
This Dark Knight fan happens to love KotCS more than anyone here... Guaranteed!(y)

Well, at least I'm not the only one on here who thought both were terrific movies. Though if I absolutely had to compare them, I would instantly say KOTCS is like a Ritz cracker compared to the gourmet five-star meal that is The Dark Knight...
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
I think you need a pair of reading glasses. (If you already have some, it`s time to get a new prescription.
Once and for all, why don't you clarify just exactly what you did mean, if I am somehow misconstruing your arguments.
Darth Vile said:
I?m not sure I can say that Will? although I respect your opinion. The primary function of these movies, in this example TDK and KOTCS, is to entertain.
And TDK is more entertaining, to me, and a lot of other folks. If you liked KotCS more, that's all well and good. I don't know what tool we're supposed to use to gauge which is the better film. If entertainment is your choice, then the aggregate public opinion on the question tells us that TDK is better. If you're looking for some "enlightening" question, then TDK, with all its moral conundrums, certainly wins, as well. What aspect of KotCS is better?
Darth Vile said:
TDK may well be a superior superhero movie? it may be superior to KOTCS (and the other Indy sequels), but within context, it?s a lot closer to KOTCS than it is to Battleship Potemkin, Seven Samurai, Star Wars, The Red Shoes etc. etc.
That doesn't mean you can't grade them. Some fast food is better than other fast food, even though you might say that all fine cuisine is better than all fast food.
Darth Vile said:
As mentioned before (and we?ve used the helpful food analogies quite a bit here) sometimes a burger can be the tastiest, most enjoyable meal to eat. Time/money/effort (and a serious demeanour) doesn?t automatically equate to the best product/the best experience? High and low art (if you believe in such a thing) is not mutually exclusive. One should be able to love a pizza and beer just as much as foie gras and veuve clicquot... What?s more important I think is one?s ability to discern the differences and make informed choices about what is consumed. ;)
I wrote the above before I saw your analogy. It just happens that I, and a lot of other people, think that TDK's gourmet pizza wins out over KotCS's crappy hamburger. Raiders, on the other hand, is about the best hamburger you can get, so we can't compare it to TDK's gourmet pizza, because they're both the best at what they do. And at the end of the day, they're all just tasty fluff, but TDK just happens to have fresher ingredients.
 

Darth Vile

New member
WillKill4Food said:
And TDK is more entertaining, to me, and a lot of other folks. If you liked KotCS more, that's all well and good. I don't know what tool we're supposed to use to gauge which is the better film. If entertainment is your choice, then the aggregate public opinion on the question tells us that TDK is better. If you're looking for some "enlightening" question, then TDK, with all its moral conundrums, certainly wins, as well. What aspect of KotCS is better?
Like I said Will… If you are looking for something to really enlighten then there are literally thousands of movies out there (both old and new) that do that much better than Batman and Indiana Jones. KOTCS may very well be more superficial than TDK, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that TDK is also superficial, albeit well made, Hollywood fodder.

I'm really not trying to say you shouldn't like or have a preference for TDK, I'm just not swayed that you can convince me that KOTCS is substantially, scientifically inferior... and that one has better taste for preferring TDK.

If you are asking what aspect of KOTCS works better for me… that depends whether you mean in empirical terms or emotional terms. In emotional terms I found KOTCS to be more engaging and enjoyable. What KOTCS lacked in any sense of real 'peril' or danger, it made up for (well partly) with a genuine sense of fun. It's lightweight brevity may have been the wrong approach to take, but it did it well (IMHO). On the other hand, I found TDK to be massively pretentious in the way that nouvelle cuisine is. It took itself far too seriously which, for me, left me unengaged. I didn't feel anything for the characters (specifically Bruce Wayne) and I found the action scenes to be as pedestrian, if not more so, than KOTCS. I don’t for a second doubt the effort/talent that went into the movie… I just thought it was a backwards step from Batman Begins (which for me had the right mix of comic book vibe and verisimilitude).

WillKill4Food said:
That doesn't mean you can't grade them. Some fast food is better than other fast food, even though you might say that all fine cuisine is better than all fast food.
Yep – but the point I was making is that it quickly becomes self defeating and obtuse to compare/contrast KFC with McDonalds. IMHO, TDK and KOTCS are good examples of well made, imaginative… but ultimately insignificant Hollywood conveyor belt/production line movies. The fact that TDK may indeed be "better" than KOTCS doesn't take away from TDK's overall insignificance... and what it represents. However, I firmly believe there is a whole other strata underneath the TDK's, KOTCS, The Phantom Menance's and Iron Man's... which contain poorly made/unimaginative and insignificant Hollywood type movies. They are the ones more worthy of castigation... if castigation is the game.

WillKill4Food said:
I wrote the above before I saw your analogy. It just happens that I, and a lot of other people, think that TDK's gourmet pizza wins out over KotCS's crappy hamburger. Raiders, on the other hand, is about the best hamburger you can get, so we can't compare it to TDK's gourmet pizza, because they're both the best at what they do. And at the end of the day, they're all just tasty fluff, but TDK just happens to have fresher ingredients.
But again that’s all very subjective/relative… as the head chef at Le Gavroche or Pétrus would think that all fast food was equally as sh*t. I think it’s healthy to express a preference… but it would be a mistake to think that just because one has a preference for a cheeseburger over a chicken leg, that one is automatically a connoisseur of fine dining. ;)
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Darth Vile said:
Like I said Will? If you are looking for something to really enlighten then there are literally thousands of movies out there (both old and new) that do that much better than Batman and Indiana Jones.
I never said anything contrary to this.

Darth Vile said:
KOTCS may very well be more superficial than TDK, but that doesn?t take away from the fact that TDK is also superficial, albeit well made, Hollywood fodder.
Don't read to much into what follows:
Let's assign Casablanca a theoretical film value score of 999.
Let's assign Plan 9 From Outer Space a theoretical film value score of 1.
Let's give TDK a 650.
Let's give KotCS a 649.
Even if KotCS is only ever the slightest bit crappier than TDK (and I would argue that KotCS is exponentially crappier), 650 > 649. Unless you're going to argue that KotCS is the better film (which you don't seem willing to do), then whether TDK is "Hollywood fodder" is irrelevant.

Darth Vile said:
I'm really not trying to say you shouldn't like or have a preference for TDK, I'm just not swayed that you can convince me that KOTCS is substantially, scientifically inferior... and that one has better taste for preferring TDK.
TDK had an emotional basis beyond the sit-com level of KotCS. TDK lacked Tarzan antics and bad CGI. TDK asked moral questions. On at least some level, TDK referenced some aspects of current events and the war on terror. I'm not sure liking TDK over KotCS makes you have better taste, but I think there's the distinct possibility that preferring KotCS over TDK indicates that you have worse taste. Again, I think the genre concept lays out the situation very well. TDK is among the best superhero films; Raiders is among the best adventure films. However, KotCS is not anywhere close to Raiders in quality, and I don't think you could find a single person at the Raven who would say otherwise. KotCS is not the better film.

Darth Vile said:
I just thought it was a backwards step from Batman Begins (which for me had the right mix of comic book vibe and verisimilitude).
That's clearly a matter of personal taste. Did you prefer KotCS to TDK?

Darth Vile said:
Yep ? but the point I was making is that it quickly becomes self defeating and obtuse to compare/contrast KFC with McDonalds.
Why? To make a point you must first provide a warrant. You're giving us conclusions without reasons. To put it into completely different terms, you would not say that killing an old man is insignificant because, oh look, the Holocaust. That's a horrible analogy, I fully acknowledge this. But the point is that degrees are important.
I'm not talking about film masterpieces, and you clearly do not think that film must be a masterpiece to be enjoyable. But you have not yet been willing to say that a person's taste is not indicated at all by their consumption. If you can have high-brow and low-brow art, why is it not possible to have highs and lows within each?

Darth Vile said:
The fact that TDK may indeed be "better" than KOTCS doesn't take away from TDK's overall insignificance...
Insignificant for gaining nearly universal critical acclaim and redefining the superhero genre?

Darth Vile said:
But again that?s all very subjective/relative? as the head chef at Le Gavroche or Pétrus would think that all fast food was equally as sh*t.
To think it all "equal" would be ignorant, and I imagine that the head chefs at those restaurants are most likely pompous arses if they think such a thing. Degrees matter.

Darth Vile said:
...but it would be a mistake to think that just because one has a preference for a cheeseburger over a chicken leg, that one is automatically a connoisseur of fine dining. ;)
Now see, this is just ridiculous. You've completely turned around everything that I have said. I have never said that TDK represents the best of cinema. I've never claimed to be a connoisseur of film on any level.
I adopted the fast food analogy myself. A burger is not just a burger. Ingredients matter, and KotCS was stale and unfilling.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
"Before pop art, there was such a thing as bad taste. Now there's kitsch, schlock, camp, and porn." - Don DeLillo, Running Dog
 

Darth Vile

New member
WillKill4Food said:
I never said anything contrary to this.

Don't read to much into what follows:
Let's assign Casablanca a theoretical film value score of 999.
Let's assign Plan 9 From Outer Space a theoretical film value score of 1.
Let's give TDK a 650.
Let's give KotCS a 649.
Even if KotCS is only ever the slightest bit crappier than TDK (and I would argue that KotCS is exponentially crappier), 650 > 649. Unless you're going to argue that KotCS is the better film (which you don't seem willing to do), then whether TDK is "Hollywood fodder" is irrelevant.
Will – what’s the point of me trying to argue that KOTCS is the better movie??? I don’t need to… I preferred KOTCS to TDK and that should be enough. What I’m saying is that you can’t demonstrate that TDK is any better (unless you have a scientific equation or stone written tablet from God that proves otherwise)… and, using your score system, even if TDK is 1 point better than KOTC; it’s still closer to KOTCS than it is to Casablanca (which was sort of my point in the first place).

WillKill4Food said:
TDK had an emotional basis beyond the sit-com level of KotCS. TDK lacked Tarzan antics and bad CGI. TDK asked moral questions. On at least some level, TDK referenced some aspects of current events and the war on terror. I'm not sure liking TDK over KotCS makes you have better taste, but I think there's the distinct possibility that preferring KotCS over TDK indicates that you have worse taste. Again, I think the genre concept lays out the situation very well. TDK is among the best superhero films; Raiders is among the best adventure films. However, KotCS is not anywhere close to Raiders in quality, and I don't think you could find a single person at the Raven who would say otherwise. KotCS is not the better film.
I don’t agree. You are assigning merit to a movie simply to justify your own emotional response to it… ”Moral questions? “War on terror”? TDK is about as intellectually challenging as a bath. Unfortunately by attempting to take the intellectual high ground vis-à-vis an action movie about a man who fights crime dressed up as a bat, you’ve actually undermined your entire argument….

WillKill4Food said:
That's clearly a matter of personal taste. Did you prefer KotCS to TDK?
As I stated above, I’d take any Indiana Jones movie over TDK (including Temple of Doom). That’s not to say that I hate TDK… as I don’t… but I certinaly don’t believe it to be a great movie.

WillKill4Food said:
Why? To make a point you must first provide a warrant. You're giving us conclusions without reasons. To put it into completely different terms, you would not say that killing an old man is insignificant because, oh look, the Holocaust. That's a horrible analogy, I fully acknowledge this. But the point is that degrees are important.
I'm not talking about film masterpieces, and you clearly do not think that film must be a masterpiece to be enjoyable. But you have not yet been willing to say that a person's taste is not indicated at all by their consumption. If you can have high-brow and low-brow art, why is it not possible to have highs and lows within each?
You ask why? You first have to ask yourself if you believe in the concepts of high and low art. If not, then surely it can be argued that every expression is a legitimate form of art… ergo any assigning of value/scoring becomes completely subjective.
However, if you do believe in the concept of high and low art, you then have to ask yourself where does a movie about a man dressed as a bat manufactured by a bourgeois, Capitalist Western system fit into that criteria for art.

WillKill4Food said:
Insignificant for gaining nearly universal critical acclaim and redefining the superhero genre?
Titanic had lots of acclaim and won more Oscars… so I’m assuming that if you prefer TDK to Titanic then it probably indicates you have inferior taste… nes pa? Also, not entirely sure how TDK has ‘redefined the superhero genre’??? It was a popular movie for sure… but surely we’re not going to use popularity as a gauge for worthiness?


WillKill4Food said:
To think it all "equal" would be ignorant, and I imagine that the head chefs at those restaurants are most likely pompous arses if they think such a thing. Degrees matter.
Believe me when I say that I have quite a few friends in the British movie/TV industry; and they find it highly amusing when I tell them that people are willing to argue the toss between what’s better… Batman, Indiana Jones or Star Wars. When you look at the genuine artistry involved in a movie like, for example, The King’s Speech; TDK and KOTCS don’t even register… the degrees between them are indivisible. You may find it a worthwhile pursuit debating why a KFC is better than a McDonalds, but I find it quite depressing… ;)


WillKill4Food said:
Now see, this is just ridiculous. You've completely turned around everything that I have said. I have never said that TDK represents the best of cinema. I've never claimed to be a connoisseur of film on any level.
I adopted the fast food analogy myself. A burger is not just a burger. Ingredients matter, and KotCS was stale and unfilling.
Never said you were Will. I specifically used the pronoun “one”.
As far as food analogies go… KOTCS may have had some “stale” and “unfilling” ingredients… but I found that preferable to the complex carbs that constituted TDK… left me feeling uncomfortable and nauseas. ;)

WillKill4Food said:
"Before pop art, there was such a thing as bad taste. Now there's kitsch, schlock, camp, and porn." - Don DeLillo, Running Dog
"Bad taste" is a term used by the ruling class to put down the bourgeois middle classes who started to seize influence and power (historically by the growth of commerce and industry) from the wealthy few. I too don't subscribe to the view that people are born with taste and standing, as it's a simple method for the ruling classes to legitimise their position (inherited power).
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Darth Vile said:
Will ? what?s the point of me trying to argue that KOTCS is the better movie??? I don?t need to? I preferred KOTCS to TDK and that should be enough.
I'm sure plenty of people prefer pornography to Citizen Kane. Does this prevent us from determining which are the better films?
Darth Vile said:
What I?m saying is that you can?t demonstrate that TDK is any better (unless you have a scientific equation or...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/
Darth Vile said:
...a stone written tablet from God that proves otherwise)?
-http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080716/reviews/55996637
-http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080709212755/http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/the_dark_knight
-http://www.emanuellevy.com/review/dark-knight-the-4/
Darth Vile said:
I don?t agree. You are assigning merit to a movie simply to justify your own emotional response to it? ?Moral questions? ?War on terror?? TDK is about as intellectually challenging as a bath.
"A bath and a tenderloin steak. Those are the high points of a man's life." -
Curt Siodmak
Famed sycholgist Richard Ryder is known to philosophize in his bath.
Darth Vile said:
Unfortunately by attempting to take the intellectual high ground vis-à-vis an action movie about a man who fights crime dressed up as a bat, you?ve actually undermined your entire argument?.
That's inane. I suppose The King's Speech is merely a story about a voice lesson, and Citizen Kane is about a sled. Potempkin is about a baby falling down some stairs.
Surely you must recognize that films run deeper than just what you see on screen? The situations are often irrelevant to the quality of the film and the plot.
Darth Vile said:
As I stated above, I?d take any Indiana Jones movie over TDK (including Temple of Doom). That?s not to say that I hate TDK? as I don?t? but I certinaly don?t believe it to be a great movie.
But why?
Darth Vile said:
You ask why? You first have to ask yourself if you believe in the concepts of high and low art. If not, then surely it can be argued that every expression is a legitimate form of art?
Where is the artistry in dropping an atomic bomb on a refrigerator? Lucas succeeded in undermining half a century's worth of paranoia. Don't worry kids, the Cold War ain't nothin'. Let's all just hide in a fridge. If only the Japs knew what Indy knows.
Darth Vile said:
...ergo any assigning of value/scoring becomes completely subjective.
No. Where is KotCS's emotional core?
Darth Vile said:
However, if you do believe in the concept of high and low art, you then have to ask yourself where does a movie about a man dressed as a bat manufactured by a bourgeois, Capitalist Western system fit into that criteria for art.
Nolan hardly qualifies as a bourgeois director only interested in the bucks.
Darth Vile said:
Titanic had lots of acclaim and won more Oscars? so I?m assuming that if you prefer TDK to Titanic then it probably indicates you have inferior taste? nes pa?
They're two entirely different films. It's irrelevant. You could compare TDK to Spider-man or Iron Man, but not a romantic drama.
Darth Vile said:
Also, not entirely sure how TDK has ?redefined the superhero genre????
http://www.slashfilm.com/spider-man-reboot-already-written-will-be-gritty-contemporary-take/
Darth Vile said:
Believe me when I say that I have quite a few friends in the British movie/TV industry; and they find it highly amusing when I tell them that people are willing to argue the toss between what?s better? Batman, Indiana Jones or Star Wars.
TDK cannot be compared to the Phantom Menace.
Darth Vile said:
"Bad taste" is a term used by the ruling class to put down the bourgeois middle classes who started to seize influence and power (historically by the growth of commerce and industry) from the wealthy few. I too don't subscribe to the view that people are born with taste and standing, as it's a simple method for the ruling classes to legitimise their position (inherited power).
This position seems rather incompatible with your insistence on throwing around your connections to the British film industry. If there's no such thing as good and bad taste, then why do you find it necessary to defer to these people or top chefs? What's wrong with McDonald's if bad taste doesn't exist? Is fast food bad for your body? Hm. Are crap films bad for your mind?
 

Darth Vile

New member
WillKill4Food said:
I'm sure plenty of people prefer pornography to Citizen Kane. Does this prevent us from determining which are the better films?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/
So from someone who purports to have superior taste and understand better what constitutes higher artist merit, you seem to have a very simplistic method for measuring that i.e. popular opinion. Perhaps we should defer to the ?X-Factor? method for our entire critical appraisal.

WillKill4Food said:
That's inane. I suppose The King's Speech is merely a story about a voice lesson, and Citizen Kane is about a sled. Potempkin is about a baby falling down some stairs.
Surely you must recognize that films run deeper than just what you see on screen? The situations are often irrelevant to the quality of the film and the plot.
Are you seriously trying to make us believe that TDK compares to those other movies? What I recognize is that you are simply trying to rationalize your enjoyment by assigning more value to it that it actually warrants, which in itself is not a problem (I do that with Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies)? but what is a problem is when you attempt to take the intellectual higher ground based solely on your emotional responses to a movie. I have numerous friends who are much better and wiser than me who think Raiders and Star Wars are utter garbage. Do I think their taste is inferior? Absolutely not. The problem with where your argument is going is that you?re basically stating that if one doesn?t see TDK?s intelligence/artistic merit, then one must have inferior taste. Hmmm - ?the king was in the altogether? ? Hans Christian Andersen.

WillKill4Food said:
Why don?t I believe TDK to be a great film? I thought I?d already stated my reasons? I think it?s pretentious, overblown, overly long, it?s dull in many places. For an action movie, the action is more pedestrian and less imaginative than KOTCS, Christian Bale seems to be doing a pastiche of Christian Bale in Batman Begins, the movie doesn?t make me care for any of the characters, the character of Two Face is pointlessly squeezed into the plot at the expense of pacing, it has gratuitous location shooting in Hong Kong simply to look ?cool?. Etc. etc.

WillKill4Food said:
Where is the artistry in dropping an atomic bomb on a refrigerator? Lucas succeeded in undermining half a century's worth of paranoia. Don't worry kids, the Cold War ain't nothin'. Let's all just hide in a fridge. If only the Japs knew what Indy knows.
Personally I thought there was more imagination in the first 30 minutes of KOTCS than there was in the entire running time of TDK. But that?s just my opinion and not an absolute, Again, I think it?s a mistake to think that a movie that takes itself seriously is automatically better than one that doesn?t.

WillKill4Food said:
No. Where is KotCS's emotional core?
Emotional core??? Where?s the emotional core in TDK? It?s just a bunch of characters you want to slap. For better or worse it?s the only Batman movie I?ve ever seen where I want the antagonist (in this case The Joker) to kill off the protagonists because they are such a bunch of self-righteous prigs. This is a fundamental flaw in TDK for me? by trying to set the movie in a more realistic world they make the characters less believable.

WillKill4Food said:
Nolan hardly qualifies as a bourgeois director only interested in the bucks.
Really?

WillKill4Food said:
They're two entirely different films. It's irrelevant. You could compare TDK to Spider-man or Iron Man, but not a romantic drama.
I make the comparison because who where linking acclaim/popularity with artistic merit. It don?t work that way Will.

WillKill4Food said:
So you?re actually saying that TDK?s overriding influence and legacy is to show how a studio can make loads of cash out of remaking the same movie over and over again? and that if you call it a ?reboot?, people will actually buy into it being something new. Yep ? I?d agree. That?s a real artistic achievement.

WillKill4Food said:
TDK cannot be compared to the Phantom Menace.
Lol?

WillKill4Food said:
This position seems rather incompatible with your insistence on throwing around your connections to the British film industry. If there's no such thing as good and bad taste, then why do you find it necessary to defer to these people or top chefs? What's wrong with McDonald's if bad taste doesn't exist? Is fast food bad for your body? Hm. Are crap films bad for your mind?
You unfortunately just don?t seem to get it Will? It?s not about good and bad taste. It?s about understanding the context and exposing oneself to enough information that one can make informed choices. As mentioned before, if you think TDK is deep and asks questions about our moral compasses, war and terror etc. all I can say is watch more important movies so you can get some perspective.
As for my ?connections?? I?m not sure I ever throw around my profession or that of friends and family? I?m just pointing out the irony that some of the people who actually worked on TDK don?t actually hold it in such high regard as you do (even thought they are proud of their work). "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." David Hulme.
 

kongisking

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Emotional core??? Where?s the emotional core in TDK? It?s just a bunch of characters you want to slap. For better or worse it?s the only Batman movie I?ve ever seen where I want the antagonist (in this case The Joker) to kill off the protagonists because they are such a bunch of self-righteous prigs. This is a fundamental flaw in TDK for me? by trying to set the movie in a more realistic world they make the characters less believable.

Sorry to interrupt your guys' argument, but this bit baffles me. You're telling me James Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, Lucius Fox and Mayor Anthony Garcia were not admirably heroic characters? Boy, I'd hate to see an example of what you consider to be likable, righteous and heroic people. Oh, wait, I know...

Jesusat33A.jpg
 

indyclone25

Well-known member
well to tell you honestly , i have only read some of the posts here on the subject.
i like dark knight, but not as much as i liked kotcs , that summer i saw kotcs 5 times and watched dk once, the dark knight was a good movie movie but i thought is was better than batman begins , both were long, drawn out movies.
i took kotcs as what it was and like the other indiana jones films were, a popcorn movie. it was meant to be light hearted and fun ,something not to be profound.
people can find something to argue about both films and all they want to do is complain about something , that is the way people are and have always been .
people may say that i may be dumb for liking kotcs. but it had enough action in it for my tastes, did it have some stupid stunts ? of course it did , like marion driving down a rubber tree? having mutt swing from far away to meet up with the jeep and duck to finally get the skull back ?
temple of doom had the jumping out of a plane witha boat thing , impossible , yes! but did we like it , yes!
i have seen the dark knight a few more times , i think it still an ok movie .but i like daredevil better than dark knight!
their will be always different tastes for different people .
was there a conspiracy that dark knights fans had against indy , maybe , maybe not .but is it something to worry about? no.
so just enjoy your movies and smile :D
 

indyclone25

Well-known member
well to tell you honestly , i have only read some of the posts here on the subject.
i like dark knight, but not as much as i liked kotcs , that summer i saw kotcs 5 times and watched dk once, the dark knight was a good movie movie but i thought is was better than batman begins , both were long, drawn out movies.
i took kotcs as what it was and like the other indiana jones films were, a popcorn movie. it was meant to be light hearted and fun ,something not to be profound.
people can find something to argue about both films and all they want to do is complain about something , that is the way people are and have always been .
people may say that i may be dumb for liking kotcs. but it had enough action in it for my tastes, did it have some stupid stunts ? of course it did , like marion driving down a rubber tree? having mutt swing from far away to meet up with the jeep and duck to finally get the skull back ?
temple of doom had the jumping out of a plane witha boat thing , impossible , yes! but did we like it , yes!
i have seen the dark knight a few more times , i think it still an ok movie .but i like daredevil better than dark knight!
their will be always different tastes for different people .
was there a conspiracy that dark knights fans had against indy , maybe , maybe not .but is it something to worry about? no.
so just enjoy your movies and smile :D
 

Darth Vile

New member
kongisking said:
Sorry to interrupt your guys' argument, but this bit baffles me. You're telling me James Gordon, Alfred Pennyworth, Lucius Fox and Mayor Anthony Garcia were not admirably heroic characters? Boy, I'd hate to see an example of what you consider to be likable, righteous and heroic people. Oh, wait, I know...
Not particularly Kongisking. I have nothing against the actors, I just thought the entire tone of the movie was all rather self righteous... and the notion of moral conflict, which I felt was being spoon fed the audience, was all very obvious and predictable (IMHO).
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Darth Vile said:
Not particularly Kongisking. I have nothing against the actors, I just thought the entire tone of the movie was all rather self righteous... and the notion of moral conflict, which I felt was being spoon fed the audience, was all very obvious and predictable (IMHO).

Indeed. Of course, Nolan does seem to have one of the more structured, formalist approaches to storytelling around, as exhibited most strongly by his approach to dreams.

I <I>like</I> the Batman movies, not least because they're an attempt at popular cinema with some content, but the second one in particular is rather stifling. And most of the fun of <I>Inception</I> was its heist film nature.

So, yeah, while I have some measure of respect for his work, I'd much rather pop Crystal Skull into the old DVD player.
 

James

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
So, yeah, while I have some measure of respect for his work, I'd much rather pop Crystal Skull into the old DVD player.

I'm reminded of the critic who praised TDK as a well-made film, while also noting it wasn't "anybody's idea of fun". (I want to say it was a reviewer from Time, but I'm not certain.)

Anyway, I wouldn't say Batfans were responsible for the hate, but I have always felt TDK/KOTCS represented a clear generational divide. The former was the kind of experience that kids who grew up online- and the adults that have tried to preserve their childhoods there- have come to crave in their films. It was realistic (sic), overly-serious, lengthy, and just itching to be analyzed and dissected for weeks online. Very much a left-brain affair.

KOTCS was the total opposite: A playful, right-brain monster that would've been far more at home in an over-the-top decade like the 1950s or 1980s. The stunts were implausible, the script was lightweight, and the ideas were almost as silly as a giant, walking marshmallow or a basketball-playing werewolf that just wants to be accepted for himself. Perhaps worst of all, it broke the very rules that aspiring filmmakers had been taught in film class to always obey.

There's plenty of room for both approaches, but for me, KOTCS is the more enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. At the end of the day, it delivers the kind of escapism that attracted me to the character of Indiana Jones in the first place. By comparison, Batman didn't become my favorite superhero because criminals had a greater chance of winning the lottery than actually encountering him in a dark alley.
 

Darth Vile

New member
James said:
I'm reminded of the critic who praised TDK as a well-made film, while also noting it wasn't "anybody's idea of fun". (I want to say it was a reviewer from Time, but I'm not certain.)

Anyway, I wouldn't say Batfans were responsible for the hate, but I have always felt TDK/KOTCS represented a clear generational divide. The former was the kind of experience that kids who grew up online- and the adults that have tried to preserve their childhoods there- have come to crave in their films. It was realistic (sic), overly-serious, lengthy, and just itching to be analyzed and dissected for weeks online. Very much a left-brain affair.

KOTCS was the total opposite: A playful, right-brain monster that would've been far more at home in an over-the-top decade like the 1950s or 1980s. The stunts were implausible, the script was lightweight, and the ideas were almost as silly as a giant, walking marshmallow or a basketball-playing werewolf that just wants to be accepted for himself. Perhaps worst of all, it broke the very rules that aspiring filmmakers had been taught in film class to always obey.

There's plenty of room for both approaches, but for me, KOTCS is the more enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. At the end of the day, it delivers the kind of escapism that attracted me to the character of Indiana Jones in the first place. By comparison, Batman didn't become my favorite superhero because criminals had a greater chance of winning the lottery than actually encountering him in a dark alley.

Agree 100% James. Enjoying the movies isn't mutually exclusive (you can enjoy/appreciate both), but as you state (and regardless of flaws), KOTCS is a lot closer in spirit to the originals, and the original Star Wars movies, than Batman is. That's why this particular Indy movie engages me a lot more than the current crop of superhero/action movies. The last Star Trek movie (or Sherlock Holmes movie) come close to capturing that same spirit/tone. Sure, I can see that TDK is more thoughtful and there is a "realistic" aesthetic to the script, direction and acting... but where is the escapist fun that the Indy and Star Wars movies represent?
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Darth Vile said:
... but where is the escapist fun that the Indy and Star Wars movies represent?
Why does that escapism have to be present? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an amazing film, but you don't leave it with a smile.
 

Darth Vile

New member
WillKill4Food said:
Why does that escapism have to be present? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an amazing film, but you don't leave it with a smile.

"Escapism" doesn't have to be present... but for me, neither does a movie have to present you with moral dilemma's, dark subtext, conspiracy theories, 'gritty realism' or violence in order for me to deem it 'good' or with merit. Singing in the Rain, A Night At The Opera, It's A Wonderful Life, Indiana Jones and Star Wars sit proudly alongside the likes of The Godfather, There Will Be Blood and 2001: ASO in my collection. I can enjoy them all equally without thinking the less serious ones are of lesser significance. That was my point. :)
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Darth Vile said:
"Escapism" doesn't have to be present... but for me, neither does a movie have to present you with moral dilemma's, dark subtext, conspiracy theories, 'gritty realism' or violence in order for me to deem it 'good' or with merit. Singing in the Rain, A Night At The Opera, It's A Wonderful Life, Indiana Jones and Star Wars sit proudly alongside the likes of The Godfather, There Will Be Blood and 2001: ASO in my collection. I can enjoy them all equally without thinking the less serious ones are of lesser significance. That was my point. :)

<I>It's a Wonderful Life</I> is escapism? :confused:

I get your point, I suppose, but now <I>that's</I> a movie that's compellingly dark and depressing, pulling out of that tailspin just in the last reel.


James said:
Anyway, I wouldn't say Batfans were responsible for the hate, but I have always felt TDK/KOTCS represented a clear generational divide. The former was the kind of experience that kids who grew up online- and the adults that have tried to preserve their childhoods there- have come to crave in their films. It was realistic (sic), overly-serious, lengthy, and just itching to be analyzed and dissected for weeks online. Very much a left-brain affair.

KOTCS was the total opposite: A playful, right-brain monster that would've been far more at home in an over-the-top decade like the 1950s or 1980s. The stunts were implausible, the script was lightweight, and the ideas were almost as silly as a giant, walking marshmallow or a basketball-playing werewolf that just wants to be accepted for himself. Perhaps worst of all, it broke the very rules that aspiring filmmakers had been taught in film class to always obey.

And I actually don't know that I would go this far. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, quite self-consciously, trying to say something about both knowledge and communism, from the looks of it, or at least be suffused with more references to either than was actually necessary. In the latter case, it's the army ants and the hive mind of the skeletons, and in the former...well, as I've said previously, has there ever been a...ah, hell, I'm just gonna quote my own post...

Attila the Professor said:
Richer in themes, though? Perhaps. The deeply self-conscious obsession with knowledge (cf. "I know things, I know them before anyone else," "you don't know him, you don't know him", "...you gotta get out of the library," "peer across the world and know the enemy's secrets," "I want to know everything," "knowledge was their treasure,"), the parallel track of collective action (Communists, ants, aliens), the half-baked aging stuff (especially, I suppose, Stanforth's cut line about age and identity). Some of its hackneyed, but they put more work into it than Temple did, I think. That isn't to say that Kingdom is better - and arguably the seams show a little too much - but it all hangs together, especially with the mythology of the artifact, in a way that the Sankara Stones never mesh thematically that much with the rest of Temple.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
And I actually don't know that I would go this far. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, quite self-consciously, trying to say something about both knowledge and communism, from the looks of it...

No, I'd agree with that. My above intention was to simply place both films into a very generalized category.

Ironically, if released during the 80s, CS' attempts to add a little something extra would've likely resulted in an improved reputation over the past 20 years. Just think of how the darker themes in Return of the Jedi or even the simplistic hero's redemption of Temple have helped those films overcome similarly inane handicaps.

For all the lighter moments, Indy does confront a great deal of loss in CS: His friends, family, career, country, etc. He's even forced to acknowledge a life that could've been, in the form of Marion and Mutt. Those are all elements the average fan can easily identify with- much like the estranged father-son relationship of Crusade.

Attila the Professor said:
...or at least be suffused with more references to either than was actually necessary.

I do get the sense they attempted to overcomplicate* the traditional formula a bit, perhaps after realizing how much tastes have changed during the past two decades. (*Obvious examples being the MacGuffin's murky history or Mac's uncertain motivations.)

It could also stem from something we as fans have a tendency to overlook- the fact that all of these "nostalgia trips" (ie. Indy, Rambo, Rocky, Die Hard, the possible Ghostbusters 3, etc.) are largely unnatural for the talents involved. The directors and actors hail from a time where the hero outgrew his iconic role and passed it on. In addition, there's the natural self-consciousness of trying to relive your past- especially in a franchise you had publically vowed to never re-visit.

When viewed in that context, it's quite remarkable that any of these recent sequels have managed to tap back into the spirit of the originals.
 
Top